Indeed, the membership will have their views and they should be given weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Worth also considering that there may be people generally supportive of the idea of the WSR taking back the site at Washford but still appalled at the way the railway has behaved towards the S&D trust.

Because a number of posts have been removed over the SDRT 'Notice to Quit' served upon it by WSR PLC solicitors to evict the SDRT from Washford please do not assume this matter has 'gone to bed'; in fact far from it.

I suggest that having served notice that if they do not have it already there will be a reply at some stage from the Trusts Solicitors, possibly with a matching statement, which may well take a while then it will go quiet until either the matter is resolved privately or the case goes to Court/Land Tribunal.

One interesting issue is that given the publicized woes of the PLC, would that make reaching a settlement more complex, as were they to be ordered to leave on payment of compensation, would you want to have an IOU from them to go?

I suggest that having served notice that if they do not have it already there will be a reply at some stage from the Trusts Solicitors, possibly with a matching statement, which may well take a while then it will go quiet until either the matter is resolved privately or the case goes to Court/Land Tribunal.

One interesting issue is that given the publicized woes of the PLC, would that make reaching a settlement more complex, as were they to be ordered to leave on payment of compensation, would you want to have an IOU from them to go?

Click to expand...

The matter could potentially be settled by the termination of the loan agreement and the return of 53808 to the SDRT early.

With 6 years left on the boiler ticket, considerable income could then be generated hiring it to another railway.

It depends how the value of this compares to the compensation amount it is determined is due to the SDRT by the WSR.

The matter could potentially be settled by the termination of the loan agreement and the return of 53808 to the SDRT early.

With 6 years left on the boiler ticket, considerable income could then be generated hiring it to another railway.

It depends how the value of this compares to the compensation amount it is determined is due to the SDRT by the WSR.

Click to expand...

I think that there's a flaw in your argument. The SDRT do not have the resources to maintain the locomotive so any agreement with a railway would have to be on a run and repair basis. That will bring in very little income for the SDRT and most railways would be reluctant to take on a loco half way through a 'ticket' unless, at the end of that period, there is no further obligation. That would leave the SDRT with a loco in need of an overhaul and no resources to carry it out.

I think that there's a flaw in your argument. The SDRT do not have the resources to maintain the locomotive so any agreement with a railway would have to be on a run and repair basis. That will bring in very little income for the SDRT and most railways would be reluctant to take on a loco half way through a 'ticket' unless, at the end of that period, there is no further obligation. That would leave the SDRT with a loco in need of an overhaul and no resources to carry it out.

Click to expand...

That’s what I envisaged. An agreement for a railway to run it until the end of the boiler ticket, with no further obligation to overhaul it.

This could provide an income for the SDRT until 2026. At that point an entirely new agreement could be reached (with the same or a different railway) to overhaul and run it.

In any case the Maunsell Moguls at Swanage are on a full run and repair agreement, and I believe Mr Bunch does quite well out of it.

I think that there's a flaw in your argument. The SDRT do not have the resources to maintain the locomotive so any agreement with a railway would have to be on a run and repair basis. That will bring in very little income for the SDRT and most railways would be reluctant to take on a loco half way through a 'ticket' unless, at the end of that period, there is no further obligation. That would leave the SDRT with a loco in need of an overhaul and no resources to carry it out.

Click to expand...

Well, the WSR plc had better honour their contract with the S&DRT for hire of 53808, and not just 'propose to honour' it. Otherwise, they are well and truly leaving the S&DRT in the lurch.

As the WSR Plc themselves have said, 88 is covered by a separate agreement to that for the Washford site and there should be no need for either side to try to hold it hostage. In any case, the WSR have set two precedents by cancelling two agreements (for 44422 and 6695) so I think there could be a good chance of the S&DRT being able to cancel their agreement without penalty - as you sow, so shall you reap etc!

It seems to me that what is really needed is to get both sides around a table a thrash out what the issues are, at the moment the situation seems a recipe for, if not mutually assured destruction, then at least mutually assured severe damage.

The matter could potentially be settled by the termination of the loan agreement and the return of 53808 to the SDRT early.

With 6 years left on the boiler ticket, considerable income could then be generated hiring it to another railway.

It depends how the value of this compares to the compensation amount it is determined is due to the SDRT by the WSR.

Click to expand...

Can I just make my usual point that the “ten yearly” ticket is a somewhat nebulous concept: the fact that a loco has thus far run for four years is by no means a guarantee that it will continue to run for another six. Mechanical and boiler condition both come into it, and either could cause a loco to be stopped early.

More generally - and this is not a specific comment about 53808 - it is not unusual for a loco to run rather more than half its ultimate mileage in rather less than half its time in traffic. A common pattern would be for a loco to be worked hard to start with, but - if the loco situation allows - be mainly used only at peak times or on standby in the last year or two.

That does mean that for a railway taking on a loco in the second half of its ticket, even if they did so on a “repair and run” basis there is a higher than normal risk that they might find they have rather more of the “repair” and rather less of the “run”.

Can I just make my usual point that the “ten yearly” ticket is a somewhat nebulous concept: the fact that a loco has thus far run for four years is by no means a guarantee that it will continue to run for another six. Mechanical and boiler condition both come into it, and either could cause a loco to be stopped early.

More generally - and this is not a specific comment about 53808 - it is not unusual for a loco to run rather more than half its ultimate mileage in rather less than half its time in traffic. A common pattern would be for a loco to be worked hard to start with, but - if the loco situation allows - be mainly used only at peak times or on standby in the last year or two.

That does mean that for a railway taking on a loco in the second half of its ticket, even if they did so on a “repair and run” basis there is a higher than normal risk that they might find they have rather more of the “repair” and rather less of the “run”.

Tom

Click to expand...

All very valid points. The main point I was making is that the early release of 53808 from its loan contract, would be of at least some value to the SDRT. Therefore this could potentially be used in lieu of a certain level of monetary compensation from the WSR for termination of the Washford lease.

The implication from your post is that you would like to see the SDRT accommodation they have themselves constructed on land that they have a 50 year lease for be vacated by them for WSR uses.

Is this correct?

Might I nicely suggest that you haven't thought this through.

Cheers,

Julian

Click to expand...

I think 5542 may have been negotiating with the SDRT to move the Auto Coach to Washford for completion which will not happen if the SDRT have to leave. The SDRT also own the shed, all buildings and all the track. I wonder if the WSR can afford to buy all that from them or will they take it all with them?

Other people here have quoted an income of approx 2K per annum for SDRT. I am inclined to think that would be a lot more if WSR were paying cash to hire No.88. I assume therefore that the hire agreement includes WSR being responsible for continued maintenance of the loco (i.e. they are bound to return it to SDRT in as good a condition* as it was when they received it.) rather than a simple cash deal. This would fit in with the WSR apparently not wanting to lose the loco (It's not costing them much to use - at least not in the short term anyway).

* I am assuming it was in working condition when the hire began; or was it WSR that paid for and restored it? Can anyone confirm this either way?

Click to expand...

I think in SDRT circles it is widely known that 88 is on a full repairing lease to the WSR. When the WSR first took her on she had a brand new 10 year cert and at the end of the lease she has to be returned with a brand new 10 cert. No money is paid to the SDRT by the WSR as far as I know for the use of 88.

Hence my prior query about "perhaps that's why the rent at Washford was reportedly low; it's in lieu of steaming fees?" Never got any info on that, would love to hear.

Noel

Click to expand...

I think they are entirely separate. As I see it, the locomotive is entirely cost neutral to the SDRT: the plc cover all the costs of overhaul and maintenance, and get all the benefit of running it.

In a hypothetical arrangement where there were more harmonious relationships, you can see that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. The alternative, with steaming fees, would potentially leave the SDRT at the end of the ticket with a sum of cash, which may or may not be enough to complete another restoration, and no facilities to do so - so almost inevitably mean either a painfully slow restoration or an expensive one outsourced to one or other of the contract workshops. Whereas the arrangement in place essentially keeps all the money within the WSR "family"; gives the plc a degree of control about the timescales for overhauls (and therefore when it will be available, against a long-term plan for loco provision); and frees the small charity of the risk of being left with an insufficient amount of cash to complete the overhaul that gets ever smaller as time eats into its value through inflation. But the arrangement does rely on ongoing good relations to work.

I think they are entirely separate. As I see it, the locomotive is entirely cost neutral to the SDRT: the plc cover all the costs of overhaul and maintenance, and get all the benefit of running it.

In a hypothetical arrangement where there were more harmonious relationships, you can see that would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. The alternative, with steaming fees, would potentially leave the SDRT at the end of the ticket with a sum of cash, which may or may not be enough to complete another restoration, and no facilities to do so - so almost inevitably mean either a painfully slow restoration or an expensive one outsourced to one or other of the contract workshops. Whereas the arrangement in place essentially keeps all the money within the WSR "family"; gives the plc a degree of control about the timescales for overhauls (and therefore when it will be available, against a long-term plan for loco provision); and frees the small charity of the risk of being left with an insufficient amount of cash to complete the overhaul that gets ever smaller as time eats into its value through inflation. But the arrangement does rely on ongoing good relations to work.

Tom

Click to expand...

And relies on the WSR putting some money aside for the eventual overhaul. If, as has been intimated further upthread, the WSR isn't doing this, then that could make things rather messy further down the line. Ordinarily, what would happen with a run and repair agreement if, by the end date, the repair hadn't happened? I suppose usually the circumstances would be that the overhaul was happening, but was taking longer than expected, and some leeway might be granted by the loco owning body. Hmm, note to self, must get a few more rides behind 53808 before her ticket is up, it might be a while after that!...